Page 1

UR

IB U

U

E PL

NU

Congressional Record

M

S

United States of America

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE

Vol. 160

113 th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2014

No. 91

House of Representatives The House met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. FOXX). f

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following communication from the Speaker: WASHINGTON, DC, June 12, 2014. I hereby appoint the Honorable VIRGINIA FOXX to act as Speaker pro tempore on this day. JOHN A. BOEHNER, Speaker of the House of Representatives. f

smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

PRAYER Reverend Dr. Ronnie Floyd, Cross Church, Springdale, Arkansas, offered the following prayer: Our God, as Your prophet Daniel spoke to the king in his day with humility and honor as recorded in the Book of Daniel 4:37: ‘‘The God of Heaven has given you sovereignty, power, strength, and glory.’’ Lord, as these gifted men and women serve the people of the United States, may they know You have them here by divine appointment, giving to them the influence, strength, and recognition they receive. As they make decisions that influence the entire world, I pray that You will fill them with supernatural insight, compassionate sensitivity, convictional kindness, and abounding wisdom. The needs are many, and the tasks are overwhelming. They need You, and they need each other, in order to provide hope for the American people and the entire world. So use them today to change the world for Your glory and for Your Name, I pray. Amen.

THE JOURNAL The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day’s proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved. f

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BARROW) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. BARROW of Georgia led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. f

WELCOMING REVEREND DR. RONNIE FLOYD The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. WOMACK) is recognized for 1 minute. There was no objection. Mr. WOMACK. Madam Speaker, it is a personal honor this morning to welcome to the House Chamber the Reverend Dr. Ronnie Floyd, elected this week president of the Southern Baptist Convention in Baltimore. Dr. Floyd is the senior pastor of Cross Church in northwest Arkansas, a multicampus ministry in one of America’s fastest growing regions. His commitment to evangelism, discipleship, and the advancement of the Gospel to America and the world is remarkable. He has authored a number of books, founded and hosts a businessperson’s luncheon called The Summit, and has been a strategic leader in the Southern Baptist Convention for decades. His lovely wife, Jeana, joins us in the gallery today, as does his son, Nick, himself an associate pastor at Cross Church, and his beautiful wife, Mere-

dith. His other son, Josh, is a championship football coach who just took the head coaching position with Hewitt-Trussville High School in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a dynamic leader, a dynamic visionary, and minister. I am proud to call him president of the Southern Baptist Convention. But more than anything, Madam Speaker, I am proud to call him my pastor and friend. f

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain up to five further requests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. f

NATIONAL DAIRY MONTH (Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize June as National Dairy Month. As a means to promote increased milk sales and consumption, the dairy industry began National Milk Month in 1937. Over the years, National Milk Month evolved into National Dairy Month in order to recognize the importance of all American-made milk and dairy products. The dairy industry has had great success with just promotions— particularly with the ‘‘Got Milk?’’ campaign over the years. With over 8,300 dairy farms throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, dairy production remains the single-largest sector of Pennsylvania’s agriculture industry—the number one industry in Pennsylvania. This makes Pennsylvania fourth in dairy production nationally. The 2014 farm bill makes numerous positive changes to the former dairy

b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. H5321

. VerDate Mar 15 2010

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

Jkt 039060

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

E:\CR\FM\A12JN7.000

H12JNPT1


H5322

programs. The new law repealed a number of outdated programs and replaced them with a free-market margin insurance program. Now, I was proud to support this new farm bill and the reforms that the law legislates. Madam Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to support our Nation’s dairy industry and celebrate June as National Dairy Month. f

GUN VIOLENCE (Ms. KELLY of Illinois asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Madam Speaker, in the past 3 weeks, our Nation experienced three shootings in Isla Vista, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Troutdale, Oregon, for which we remembered the victims with a moment of silence. These shootings that resulted in 14 senseless deaths received national media coverage and sparked a national discussion on the need for better mental health policy. Mental health is a factor, but only one factor, in the gun violence epidemic. In the same 3 weeks, 175 people were shot on the streets of Chicago, with a number of deaths. None of these shootings made national headlines, sparked a national debate, or received a congressional moment of silence. As a Nation, we have become unfazed by urban violence. But I am not asking for more silence. We have been silent enough. We need action. I have introduced three bills that promote commonsense gun reform and that don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights. These bills would highlight the public health risk associated with gun violence, help the Consumer Product Safety Commission set gun safety standards, and prohibit high-risk individuals from possessing guns. I urge my colleagues to be a voice for American safety. Gun violence is more than mental, and Americans can no longer afford our silence. Lastly, I want to know just who and how many more must die or be shot before we take action?

smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

f

CELEBRATING FATHER’S DAY (Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Speaker, over a century ago, a Spokane woman named Sonora Smart Dodd thought up a way to honor her dad, a Civil War veteran who raised her and her five siblings after their mother passed away. Little did Sonora know that her thoughtful idea would one day become a national holiday honoring fathers from across the country. A source of pride for Spokane and for all of eastern Washington, Sonora’s vision for celebrating her dad—and all dads—will continue this Sunday as we take time to celebrate Father’s Day.

VerDate Mar 15 2010

June 12, 2014

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

Jkt 039060

As families in eastern Washington and all across our Nation recognize the role fathers play in our lives, I celebrate the impact my own dad has had in shaping who I am today. I celebrate him and all dads for their sacrifices, their guidance, and their support. Our sons and daughters learn so much from their parents, and it is fitting that we honor all dads who have devoted time to be with their children. Parenthood comes with its own unique set of challenges. My husband and I know this firsthand. But fathers play an essential role in making our families and our communities strong. Today, I honor Sonora Smart Dodd for her vision, and I honor fathers from eastern Washington. From that first Father’s Day in Spokane back in 1910 to the 104th one this Sunday, let’s celebrate fathers.

levels, and funding for HOME investment partnership is cut to its lowest level in history. Sadly, it gets worse. The bill practically eliminates the TIGER grant program that funds innovative highway, port, and rail projects. At a time when America’s infrastructure is crumbling, why on Earth would Congress slash funding for critical infrastructure investments that support jobs? To compete in the 21st century economy, we must bet on America’s future and dedicate resources to infrastructure projects that support jobs in the construction sector, grow our economy, and rebuild America. Our competitors are investing in infrastructure. It is time we do, too. f

f

JOLIET PUBLIC LIBRARY STAR WARS DAY (Mr. FOSTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, as a scientist, it is not often that I come to the floor to speak out on works of science fiction, but I rise today to recognize the Fifth Annual Star Wars Day, hosted by the Joliet Public Library on Saturday, June 7, 2014. The event not only brings the community together into the historic and welcoming streets of downtown Joliet, but also promotes literacy, science, technology, engineering, and math in a fun and exciting atmosphere that captivates young minds. Thanks to the library’s Star Wars Day, no Jedi mind tricks are needed to get children to read over the summer. In its 5 years, Star Wars Day has grown to over 7,000 attendees, thanks to the hard work of many people. And as the Star Wars parade marched proudly down Ottawa Street, with Imperial Storm Troopers, Jedi Knights, and Ewoks in full costume, I would like to especially recognize the Sand People who, of course, march single file to hide their numbers. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the Joliet Public Library for their efforts to promote library services, literacy, and STEM education with their Fifth Annual Star Wars Day.

T-HUD (Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, this week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives approved their version of the fiscal year 2015 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill. Instead of investing in America’s future, this legislation slashes investments in our Nation’s transportation and housing infrastructure. Funding for Amtrak is cut by $200 million. Funding for the Public Housing Capital Fund is cut below sequester

DEFENDING SERGEANT BOWE BERGDAHL (Mr. MCDERMOTT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MCDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I was a Navy psychiatrist during the Vietnam war. I treated men who believed they were doing the right thing, but who, having witnessed the obscenity of war, came home shaken, brutalized, and lost. These men were demonized for their experience. Today, we are making the same mistake with Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.

f

NATIONAL MEN’S HEALTH WEEK (Mr. BARROW of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this is National Men’s Health Week. Each year, for the last 20 years, we have used the week before Father’s Day to encourage men of all ages to play an active role in living healthier lifestyles. The important thing for men to remember, not just this week, but every day, is that many of the illnesses that affect us can be prevented or successfully treated. I am living proof of that. Thanks to early detection, I was able to beat prostate cancer, which used to be one of the worst diagnoses a guy could get. This week, the members of the Congressional Men’s Health Caucus are encouraging men, boys, and their families to develop positive habits, take preventive measures to combat illness, and do your best to lead healthy lifestyles. I know all too well the importance of early prevention and early detection, and how they can mean the difference between life or death. As a leader of the Prostate Cancer Task Force, I encourage men of all ages to do the smart thing: know your number, know your condition, and stay healthy.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

f

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.002

H12JNPT1


June 12, 2014

Yesterday, I watched as members of the House Armed Services Committee attacked a U.S. citizen who volunteered to serve his country and who was held in the most deplorable of conditions for 5 years. In my time in Congress, I have never seen a more disgraceful, purely political attack on a U.S. soldier. How many times have we heard from our generals and our admirals that we never leave a warrior behind? We sent Sergeant Bergdahl to war. We gave Sergeant Bergdahl his gun and his orders. We must bring Sergeant Bergdahl home and take care of him. f

b 0915

smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

CONDEMNING ABDUCTION OF FEMALE STUDENTS BY BOKO HARAM Mr. HOLDING. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on the legislative day of June 12, 2014, to consider in the House, House Resolution 617, if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, or his designee; that the resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the preamble and the resolution to adoption without intervening motion. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. HOLDING. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 617) condemning the abduction of female students by armed militants from the terrorist group known as Boko Haram in northeastern provinces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and ask for its immediate consideration. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the title of the resolution. The Clerk read the title of the resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the resolution is considered read and the previous question is ordered on the resolution and on the preamble. The text of the resolution is as follows: H. RES. 617 Whereas, on the night of April 14, 2014, 276 female students, most of them between 15 and 18 years old, were abducted by Boko Haram from the Government Girls Secondary School, a boarding school located in the northeastern province of Borno in the Federal Republic of Nigeria; Whereas, all public secondary schools in Borno state were closed in March 2014 because of increasing attacks in the past year that have killed hundreds of students, but the young women at the Government Girls Secondary School were recalled to take their final exams; Whereas, Boko Haram burned down several buildings before opening fire on soldiers and police who were guarding the Government Girls Secondary School and forcing the students into trucks;

VerDate Mar 15 2010

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

H5323

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 039060

Whereas, according to local officials in Borno state, 53 students were able to flee their captors, and the rest remain abducted; Whereas, there are reports that the abducted girls have been sold as brides to Islamist militants for the equivalent of $12 each; Whereas, the group popularly known as ‘‘Boko Haram’’, which loosely translates from the Hausa language to ‘‘Western education is sin’’, is known to oppose the education of girls; Whereas, on April 14, 2014, hours before the kidnapping in Borno state, and on May 2, 2014, Boko Haram bombed bus stations in Abuja, Nigeria, killing at least 94 people and wounding over 160, making it the deadliest set of attacks ever in Nigeria’s capital; Whereas, Boko Haram has kidnapped girls in the past to use as cooks and sex slaves, and has claimed responsibility for the kidnapping in Borno state on April 14, 2014; Whereas, late May 5, 2014, suspected Boko Haram gunmen kidnapped an additional 8 girls, ranging in age from 12 to 15, from a village in northeast Nigeria; Whereas, on May 7, 2014, Boko Haram killed at least 336 people in Gamboru Ngala and burned hundreds of houses and cars; Whereas, on June 5, 2014, Boko Haram kidnapped an additional 20 women from northeastern Nigeria, near the town of Chibok; Whereas, reports estimate that more than 500 students and 100 teachers have been killed by Boko Haram and have destroyed roughly 500 schools in northern Nigeria, leaving more than 15,000 students without access to education; Whereas, Boko Haram has targeted schools, mosques, churches, villages, and agricultural centers, as well as government facilities, in an armed campaign to create an Islamic state in northern Nigeria, prompting the President of Nigeria to declare a state of emergency in three of the country’s northeastern states in May 2013; Whereas, human rights groups have indicated that the Nigerian state security forces should improve efforts to protect civilians during offensive operations against Boko Haram; Whereas, according to nongovernmental organizations, more than 1,500 people have been killed in attacks by Boko Haram or reprisals by Nigerian security forces this year alone, and that almost 4,000 people have been killed in Boko Haram attacks since 2011; Whereas, the enrollment, retention, and completion of education for girls in Nigeria remains a major challenge; Whereas, according to the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), some 4,700,000 children of primary school age are still not in school in Nigeria, with attendance rates lowest in the north; Whereas, studies have found that school children in Nigeria, particularly those in the northern provinces, are at a disadvantage in their education, with 37 percent of primaryage girls in the rural northeast not attending school, and 30 percent of boys not attending school; Whereas, women and girls must be allowed to go to school without fear of violence and unjust treatment so that they can take their rightful place as equal citizens of and contributors to society; Whereas United States security assistance to Nigeria has emphasized military professionalization, peacekeeping support and training, and border and maritime security; Whereas, the Department of State designated Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in November 2013, recognizing the threat posed by the group’s large-scale and indiscriminate attacks against civilians, including women and children;

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

Whereas Boko Haram is one of a number of radical Islamist terrorist organizations and extremist groups that pose a growing threat to United States interests in the region as well as broader peace and security; and Whereas these radical Islamist groups, which include Ansar al-Sharia, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the National Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa, and others have carried out deadly attacks in the region and constitute a growing threat to North and West Africa: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives— (1) expresses its strong support for the people of Nigeria, especially the parents and families of the girls abducted by Boko Haram in Borno state, and calls for the immediate, safe return of the girls; (2) condemns Boko Haram for its violent attacks on civilian targets, including schools, mosques, churches, villages, and agricultural centers in Nigeria; (3) encourages the Government of Nigeria to strengthen efforts to protect children seeking to obtain an education and to hold those who conduct such violent attacks accountable; (4) commends efforts by the United States Government to hold terrorist organizations, such as Boko Haram, accountable; (5) supports offers of United States assistance to the government of Nigeria in the search for these abducted girls and encourages the government of Nigeria to work with the United States and other concerned governments to resolve this tragic situation; (6) recognizes that every individual, regardless of gender, should have the opportunity to pursue an education without fear of discrimination; (7) encourages the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development to continue their support for initiatives that promote the human rights of women and girls in Nigeria; (8) urges the President to immediately strengthen United States security, law enforcement, and intelligence cooperation with appropriate Nigerian forces, including offering United States personnel to support operations to locate and rescue the more than 200 schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram, and to support Nigerian efforts to counter this United States designated foreign terrorist organization; and (9) calls on the President to provide to Congress a comprehensive strategy to counter the growing threat posed by radical Islamist terrorist groups in West Africa, the Sahel, and North Africa.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Ms. WILSON of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. f

PERMISSION TO POSTPONE PROCEEDINGS ON MOTION TO RECOMMIT Mr. HOLDING. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair may postpone further proceedings today on a motion to recommit as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.004

H12JNPT1


H5324

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. f

S CORPORATION PERMANENT TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2014 Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I call up the bill (H.R. 4453) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the reduced recognition period for built-in gains of S corporations, and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee print 113–46 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read. The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows: H.R. 4453 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘S Corporation Permanent Tax Relief Act of 2014’’. SEC. 2. REDUCED RECOGNITION PERIOD FOR BUILT-IN GAINS OF S CORPORATIONS MADE PERMANENT. (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (7) of section

1374(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: ‘‘(7) RECOGNITION PERIOD.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘recognition period’ means the 5-year period beginning with the 1st day of the 1st taxable year for which the corporation was an S corporation. For purposes of applying this section to any amount includible in income by reason of distributions to shareholders pursuant to section 593(e), the preceding sentence shall be applied without regard to the phrase ‘5-year’. ‘‘(B) INSTALLMENT SALES.—If an S corporation sells an asset and reports the income from the sale using the installment method under section 453, the treatment of all payments received shall be governed by the provisions of this paragraph applicable to the taxable year in which such sale was made.’’. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013. SEC. 3. PERMANENT RULE REGARDING BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF S CORPORATIONS MAKING CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROPERTY. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1367(a)(2) of the In-

smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the last sentence. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013. SEC. 4. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. (a) STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO SCORECARDS.—The budgetary effects of this Act shall

not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. (b) SENATE PAYGO SCORECARDS.—The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard maintained for purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress).

VerDate Mar 15 2010

June 12, 2014

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

Jkt 039060

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. REICHERT) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington. GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4453. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? There was no objection. Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge support for H.R. 4453, the S Corporation Permanent Tax Relief Act of 2014. Since we started the tax reform process in January of 2011, one of the main themes coming up again and again is the need for certainty for individuals to plan and businesses to thrive. Nowhere is this more true than for small businesses. Pass-through businesses, like S corporations, account for more than half of all jobs in the United States. In my home State of Washington, they are particularly important, providing 1.4 million jobs, with S corporations providing more than one in four private sector jobs. Permanence in the tax law is especially important for these privatelyheld businesses because they can’t go to the public markets every time they want to invest in new equipment or hire workers. They need certainty to plan how to most effectively deploy their capital. A perfect example of an area of the Tax Code that is ripe for permanence, so that S corporation businesses can plan to access and redeploy their own capital, is the built-in gains, or BIG, relief provision that is before us today. The BIG tax, as it is called, is a double tax on S corporations that want to sell their assets after converting from C corporation status. Currently, S corporations have to wait 10 years after converting before selling their assets to avoid the punitive double tax. Traditional year-to-year tax extender legislation has reduced this holding period to 5 years, holding to the original antiabuse intent of the rule, yet providing significant relief for businesses nationwide. H.R. 4453 would permanently reduce that holding period to 5 years. As we heard from Jim Redpath, a small business witness who is an accountant—he testified before one of our Ways and Means hearings several weeks ago—the BIG tax causes S corporations to hold on to unproductive or old assets that should be replaced. He gave the example of a road contractor that is holding onto old equipment and trucks that are sitting in the

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

junkyard that he can’t sell. He can’t even sell them for parts. Rather than selling them, if he did, they would be subject to the BIG tax, the double tax that I talked about earlier. The other impact here is, if businesses are allowed to sell these assets and used equipment, it would benefit other small businesses, starting businesses, for example, that may not be able to afford the newest and the latest equipment and technology, but they can start their businesses with used equipment. Instead of selling assets and using the proceeds to hire new workers or invest in new equipment, businessowners sit on the sidelines. This is a perfect example of Tax Code influencing business decisions, and this needs to stop. According to the IRS, tens of thousands of corporations convert to C corporations each year. We can’t continue to leave this capital locked up. We need to give it back to the small businesses that make this country thrive. The second part of this bill is also a commonsense provision that will give S corporations certainty in the value of their charitable donations. The S corporation charitable basis adjustment provision simply ensures that S corporations get the same value for their deductions as all other small businesses. These two commonsense provisions will give S corporations the certainty they need to create jobs and grow our economy in this country. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the tax extenders being considered today are important to small businesses and have been supported by Democrats. The first two bills impacting S corporations regard the gain on the sale or distribution of appreciated assets and how charitable contributions of an S corporation are taken into account by shareholders. Over the years, we have modified these provisions and extended them on a bipartisan basis. The section 179 expensing provision which we will consider second has been in the Tax Code since 1958. It was expanded and nearly quadrupled to a maximum expensing allowance to nearly $100,000 in 2003. In 2008, as another recession took hold, that allowance was increased to $250,000; and in 2010, we again expanded the provision, this time to $500,000, as we continued action to spur the economic recovery. This level was in effect through 2013, and this bill before us would make these significant expansions permanent—unpaid for. When these expansions were first enacted in 2003, House Republicans noted that these expansions ‘‘reflected the need for an economic stimulus and growth package.’’ Republicans want to talk about certainty. Well, this much is certain: the expanded 179 provision will be extended

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.006

H12JNPT1


June 12, 2014

smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

again. Our economy still needs it, and if Republicans had any interest in working on a bipartisan basis on comprehensive tax reform, we could discuss how best to make a stimulus effort a long-term part of the Tax Code. The opposite is being done today. It is tax reform in reverse. The S corporation provisions surely also will be extended, but in reality, we are not here to make law. I think that is evidenced by the atmosphere about these provisions as we take them up today. The President has indicated he will veto the approach—permanent, unpaidfor tax cuts—taken in the Republican bills before us today, and importantly, the Senate Finance Committee has approved, on a bipartisan basis, legislation to extend all tax extenders for 2 years. The total inability of the House Republican majority to take action to help our recovery, to bolster small businesses, and to grow our economy has resulted in smoke-and-mirror votes, like the ones before us today. They want to signal that they support small business, but their action is so inconsistent with their past positions that it is rendered hypocritical. Ways and Means Republicans put forth a comprehensive tax reform proposal and received accolades—the chairman did—for making it revenue neutral. Chairman CAMP included these extenders in his comprehensive tax reform proposal fully offset, the opposite of today. The measures in front of us today add up to $75 billion in deficit increases—$75 billion more. When you add in the R&D credit that passed the House last month and the eight other provisions that have moved through Ways and Means Committee, it adds up to—everybody take notice—$614 billion, unpaid for and permanent. There are still more than 40 tax provisions left unaccounted for. When all is said and done, Republicans are well on their way to increasing the deficit by $1 trillion, and we all know where it will lead—to future Republican demands to cut vital domestic priorities that have been on the chopping block for the GOP: funding for education, public health, and transportation—as we saw yesterday—to name a few. Chairman RYAN put forth a Republican budget resolution, which the Republican majority passed through this House. That budget that you all here today on the Republican side voted for stipulates that any change in tax law must be offset. These bills today shred that principle. You are shredding it. b 0930 You are inconsistent. You moved in one direction with some praise and now you are essentially moving in the opposite. And the final hypocrisy is one that hits home for 3 million unemployed Americans, I must say, for their families and for millions of Americans who care. The Republican majority insists

VerDate Mar 15 2010

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

H5325

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 039060

that unemployment insurance be paid for, but when it comes to tax cuts, they can simply be added to the deficit. The bill before us today is seven times more expensive than the cost of extending Federal unemployment insurance for the remainder of the year. And I should note that we have simply already agreed to offset the cost of such unemployment extension. Democrats stand ready—more than ready—to extend these provisions for small businesses. We stand ready— more than ready—to act on all of these expired tax provisions. We stand ready—more than ready—to act on comprehensive tax reform. And we certainly stand ready—more than ready— to extend unemployment insurance for 3 million job-seeking Americans and be paid for. But we will not be silent in the face of the Republican hypocrisy on display today. What they are doing today is reckless and irresponsible. Once again, here they go again. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CAMP), the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I would just say to my friend from Michigan, yes, there is a Senate bill. It is a bipartisan bill that extends many tax policies. And guess what. It is not offset, because it has never been offset. And I would just remark that my good friend from Michigan has voted to extend this exact policy unoffset for 12 years. So I know the gentleman referred to ‘‘hypocrisy.’’ Let’s talk about honesty. Let’s be honest about this. This policy will not be offset. Let’s give some certainty to the small businesses in America. Let me just say that I appreciated his comment that the economy needs help. With negative GDP growth in the last quarter, a contracting economy, certainly we do. With more kids living at home with their parents than ever before rather than pursuing careers, with median incomes declining, yes, we certainly do. Let me just say, small businesses and their workers, they are hit hardest by the burdens and regulations of an overly complicated Tax Code. Tax compliance costs are 65 percent higher for small businesses than for large businesses, costing them $19 billion a year. We need small businesses doing the best they can, creating jobs and growing our local economies, not buried under mounds of paperwork. The bill we have before us today is the right step forward to level the playing field between small businesses on Main Street and big businesses. If a small business chooses to operate as an S corporation for tax purposes, we should ensure that they have the ability to access certain capital without penalties. Under current law, an S corporation is subject to an entity-level tax at the highest corporate rate on certain built-

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

in gains of property that it held while operating as a C corporation. The tax applies to gain recognized within 10 years from the date that the C corporation elected to be an S corporation, and in the past, Congress has shortened this period to 5 years. This bill would make permanent the 5-year period, eliminating a significant deterrent that often discourages closely held C corporations from electing the S corporation status, thus subjecting them to a double tax. Additionally, we should ensure that S corporations receive the same treatment as partnerships when it comes to charitable donations. By achieving parity between different businesses, we can encourage all small businesses to continue their generous support of charitable activities. This legislation is supported by 35 groups representing thousands of small businesses and their workers, who wrote that this legislation will allow small businesses to ‘‘make decisions based on what is best for the company rather than the dictates of the Tax Code. At a time when our economy badly needs increased investment, allowing more companies to access their own capital is an important step.’’ Additionally, they write, this legislation would ‘‘allow America’s S corporations to be more active and supportive of much-needed charitable activities.’’ This is a bipartisan, commonsense bill that will give small businesses some much-needed relief from the burdens of the Tax Code and allow them to make new investments and create new jobs, and I urge its support. Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Let this be very clear to our distinguished chairman. These bills being brought up here unpaid for come to $75 billion. The total of the bills that have come through Ways and Means comes to $614 billion. So 75 today, we had 300and-some a week or so ago. The train is on the track as you have positioned it, 614 just to start. To extend these provisions for 2 years is $3.4 billion. That is why it is irresponsible to simply go off into the wild deficit, irresponsible yonder. That is where you are. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional minute. There is a tremendous difference between 3.4 and 75 in these bills and 614 when you add this together with more to come. It also means it gives us time to look to see whether they should be permanent under what conditions. So that is why it is reckless, it is irresponsible, it is contrary to your tax reform bill where you lauded it and we applauded that aspect that you paid for it. You called it revenue neutral. We wanted something beyond that. We didn’t want deficit wild. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to please address their remarks to the Chair.

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.007

H12JNPT1


smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

H5326

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. MCDERMOTT), an active member of our committee. (Mr. MCDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MCDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak for the citizens of Florida, Texas, Washington, Tennessee, Nevada, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming, and New Hampshire. These are States without an income tax. They do not have a State income tax. They are allowed to deduct their sales tax that they pay from their Federal income tax and receive a credit for it this year. Now, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee spent 3 years working on putting a bill together; and in that bill—it is called tax reform—it repealed, it didn’t just sort of leave unmentioned or anything else, it directly repealed that provision in the law. We are out here today—nobody denies that small business needs some help. We certainly think that is a good idea. But where are the priorities of the ordinary taxpayers in Florida, Texas, Washington, Tennessee, Nevada, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming, and New Hampshire? They are going to pay an extra thousand dollars next year in taxes. They are going to get a tax increase from the Republicans by failing to give them this deduction. It costs $6.5 billion. We are going to spend 75 or 71—or whatever it is today—billion dollars. One-tenth of that would cover the tax exemption for the people in these States, the ordinary tax citizens that everybody says they are worried about, the middle class, the middle class who is struggling in this society. But this Congress says, no, we have to take care of business. That is all we have taken care of is business so far. When the chairman had the possibility, he repealed this. Now, he is from Michigan. Why not? Who would care? They wouldn’t affect his State. What is hard for me to understand is how anybody can come out here and not defend the interest of their own citizens. If you represent Florida, Texas, Washington, Tennessee, Nevada, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming, and New Hampshire and you vote for these tax bills today and say to your people back home we don’t care what happens to you, it ought to be an interesting experience to go on the stump running for election this year. Everybody’s talking about taxes, but we are taking away a tax deduction for the people of these States. And why? I guess we haven’t got the money, or maybe the chairman doesn’t live in one of those States, or I am not quite sure how all this works, but I’m here to say that people from the State of Washington need to have a tax deduction for the sales tax that they pay in lieu of an income tax. Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as she may con-

VerDate Mar 15 2010

June 12, 2014

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

Jkt 039060

sume to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. JENKINS), who is also a member of the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, every dollar that Washington takes from small businesses is a dollar they don’t have to invest in new equipment, expand operations, hire a new employee, or provide higher pay and better benefits. Particularly, in the Obama economy, businesses are already pinned down by uncertainty and need all the flexibility they can get to adapt and grow. This legislation will strengthen our economy and spur greater investment by permanently giving small businesses organized as S corporations the ability to access capital without tax penalties. As noted at our committee hearing earlier this year, a permanent 5-year built-in gains period would provide greater flexibility in the day-today operations of S corporations that have built-in gain assets in order to make new investments and create jobs. I urge support for H.R. 4453, the S Corporation Permanent Tax Relief Act, so we can create an America that works by fixing the Tax Code to provide permanent tax relief for small businesses. Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS), a distinguished member of our committee. Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I am a longstanding supporter of S corporations, passthroughs, and small businesses. In my State, as well as around the country, S corporations are a cornerstone of the business community. These corporations span a broad range of industries and employ a large percentage of our country’s workforce. In my State alone, there are more than 235,000 S corporations providing more than 1.5 million jobs and bolstering the Illinois economy through their taxes paid. In the name of fiscal responsibility, the Republican leadership has justified refusing to help 3 million Americans, including 116,000 Illinoisans, who were unemployed through no fault of their own. b 0945 Yet the Republican leadership abandoned its fiscal responsibility to balloon our deficit to $614 billion for permanent tax breaks for corporations while refusing to aid hardworking struggling Americans in the name of fiscal responsibility. My track record is very clear on my strong support of small businesses. My track record is also very clear that I cannot and will not prioritize over half a trillion dollars in deficit spending for business tax breaks and tell struggling Americans that they are not worth the expense. I very much want the small businesses in my State to benefit from the tax benefits contained in H.R. 4457 and H.R. 4453. However, I cannot support the Republican approach of unpaid for, permanent cuts for businesses

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

while the needs of our unemployed and working poor go ignored. Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the RECORD a letter of support signed by 35 different organizations in support of this legislation. These signees include organizations as diverse as the National Grocers Association, the National Electrical Contractors Association, and the Association for Manufacturing Technology. JUNE 11, 2014. PASS THE S CORPORATION PERMANENT TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2014 DEAR MEMBER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: As representatives of America’s closely-held businesses, we ask that you support legislation (H.R. 4453) making permanent the 5-year recognition period for built-in gains, as well as the basis adjustment for charitable giving by S corporations. Small businesses are the engine of America’s economic growth and S corporations are the cornerstone of the small business community. There are more than 4.5 million of them nationwide. They are in every community and every industry and, according to Ernst & Young, they employ one out of every four private sector workers. Unlike public corporations, these closelyheld businesses have little or no access to the capital markets. Instead they rely on banks, relatives, and their own savings to fill their investment and working capital needs. An overly long built-in gains recognition period makes this disadvantage worse by preventing companies that have chosen to become S corporations from accessing their own capital and putting it to better use. Locking up a company’s capital for an entire decade is simply unreasonable. Past Congresses have recognized that a decade is too long and voted to reduce the recognition period on three separate occasions, but those temporary measures have expired and the 10year rule is back in effect. Enacting a permanent shorter recognition period would sustain the original intent of the rule while providing S corporations with much needed certainty. It would allow them to make decisions based on what is best for the company rather than the dictates of the tax code. At a time when our economy badly needs increased investment, allowing more companies to access their own, locked-up capital is an important step. Furthermore, making permanent the basis adjustment to stock of S corporations that make charitable contributions of property would help bring consistent treatment among flow-through businesses, and would allow America’s S corporations to be more active and supportive of much-needed charitable activities. On behalf of America’s Main Street business community, we respectfully ask that you vote in favor of the S Corporation Permanent Tax Relief Act of 2014. Thank you for your consideration. Aeronautical Repair Station Association, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, Agricultural Retailers Association, American Council of Engineering Companies, American Institute of Architects, American Rental Association, American Supply Association, American Trucking Associations, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Associated Equipment Distributors, Associated General Contractors of America, Auto Care Association, Financial Executives International, Food Marketing Institute, Heating, Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International, Independent

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.009

H12JNPT1


June 12, 2014

smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

Community Bankers of America, Independent Electrical Contractors. Metals Service Center Institute, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Beer Wholesalers Association, National Electrical Contractors Association, National Federation of Independent Business, National Funeral Directors Association, National Grocers Association, National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association, National Roofing Contractors Association, National Small Business Association, S Corporation Association, Small Business Council of America, Small Business Legislative Council, Subchapter S Bank Association, The Association For Manufacturing Technology, Truck Renting and Leasing Association, United States Business and Industry Council, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America.

Mr. REICHERT. Small businesses across the country recognize just how crucial it is to give access to capital to businesses in our struggling economy today. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. VAN HOLLEN), the ranking member on the Budget Committee. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, for all his work on this. The bills that we are seeing today on the floor of the House are part of a series of bills that have come out of the Ways and Means Committee from our Republican colleagues that run up our national debt by putting hundreds of billions of dollars on a credit card by permanently extending a number of business tax credits. In the process, they are actually violating their own budget that they had on the floor just a few months ago. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this is not a serious attempt to help small businesses. By bringing these measures up one at a time in a rifle-shot fashion, our Republican colleagues are abandoning what they said we should do, which we agree we should do on a bipartisan basis, which is to tackle tax reform in a fiscally responsible way. After all, Mr. Speaker, we are not helping small businesses by running up our national debt. It was just about a month ago when our Republican colleagues told us that the biggest threat to future economic growth in this country was projected deficits in the out years. We have said to our Republican colleagues we need to work together to reduce that long-term deficit. It is not a question about whether we should do it, it is a question of how we should do it. But this bill, and these bills on the floor today, take us in the opposite direction. Together, they are going to add over $614 billion to our credit card if you add up all these rifle-shot bills that have come out of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Speaker, what happened to all the rhetoric about fiscal discipline, about getting our deficits in order? Out the window.

VerDate Mar 15 2010

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

H5327

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 039060

Just to put these numbers in perspective, that $640 billion on the credit card is 30 times what it would cost to extend emergency unemployment compensation to 3 million Americans who are out of work today through no fault of their own. So contrasting these bills with the budget rhetoric we heard a few months ago about reducing our deficits is total doublespeak. Our Republican colleagues know it doesn’t meet the laugh test. When we had the debate on this very floor about the Republican budget, we pointed out that the claim that it balanced in 10 years was based on all sorts of Enron-like accounting gimmicks. For example, they assumed all the revenues that would come in over the next 10 years from the Affordable Care Act at the same time they said they were repealing the Affordable Care Act. Both things can’t happen at the same time. Yet today, even if you take the Republican budget gimmicks, as they would have us do, even if you do that, their budget no longer balances in 10 years, it no longer balances in 10 years. In fact, if you look carefully at the rules governing this debate, our Republican colleagues had to change their own rules to allow this bill to be on the floor today because otherwise it would have violated their claim of a balanced budget. So, that is the kind of gimmickry we have going on here. If our Republican colleagues were really serious about reducing the longterm deficit, as they claimed to be a month ago, they would be willing to close some of those special interest tax breaks in order to help reduce the deficit, and yet their budget doesn’t close a single special interest tax break. It keeps the big subsidies for Big Oil companies, it keeps tax breaks for hedge fund owners. The bills before us today are under a rule that doesn’t allow us to pay for them by closing some of those tax breaks. Mr. LEVIN and I would have loved to have the opportunity to say: let’s pay for this business expensing provision by shutting down some of the unproductive tax breaks, tax breaks that are there not because they have economic value but because a powerful political interest got that tax break in the Code. Yet our Republican colleagues have a rule that says we can’t touch those. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. HOLDING). The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend. I really think this goes to the heart of the matter, because whether it was the R&D tax credit, the research and development tax credit, or the business expensing provision, I support those provisions, but I support doing them in a fiscally responsible way that doesn’t add over $600 billion to our deficit and debt.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

How can we do that in a fiscally responsible way? But shutting down some of the unproductive special interest tax breaks in the Tax Code. Yet, the rule before us says we are not allowed to do that. We can’t even have a vote, Mr. Speaker, on shutting down some of those special interest tax breaks. That is how far our Republican colleagues are willing to go to keep those special interest tax breaks, not even allowing a vote to close one of them to pay for an R&D tax credit. So what is this really all about? By running up our national credit card with these business tax provisions you add to the deficit. Then our Republican colleagues will be back here with their budget saying: do you know what, now that we have this big deficit you’ve got to cut funding for our kids’ education, which is what they did in their budget; you have got to voucherize Medicare, which is what they did in their budget; we are not going to have enough funds for our national infrastructure and our highway program, which under their budget goes dry in September, people out of work. So by providing permanent, unpaid for tax extenders in the business area and running up that deficit, they will come right back to us and say: Do you know what? Now we care again about the deficit, and here is what we want to do about it: cut early education, cut our investment infrastructure, cut the National Institutes of Health research into finding cures and treatments for diseases. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this is not a serious effort. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee made an honest effort at tax reform. I don’t agree with a lot of what is in his tax reform bill, but it was an honest, professional effort. That is not coming to the floor today. In fact, this bill before us runs directly counter to the chairman’s own tax reform effort, just as it violates the Republicans’ own budget. So, let’s get serious, Mr. Speaker. Let’s deal with these in a manner that provides the incentives we want to businesses. We can do that by extending these on a short-term basis while we work together to come up with a reasonable tax reform plan in a way that is responsible from a budget perspective. That is the way we should be doing the people’s business here in the House. Because we are not doing it that way, I urge our colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ on the provisions that are before us. I thank my colleague, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Maryland spoke very eloquently on this topic. I just want to note that his past action shows something a little bit different. He has voted for this provision three times in the past. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?

E:\CR\FM\A12JN7.005

H12JNPT1


H5328

Mr. REICHERT. No, I will not. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Because I am in favor of a short-term extension, Mr. Speaker. Mr. REICHERT. I will not yield my time. POINT OF ORDER

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My point of order is this: The gentleman said that I had voted on this measure before. That is not true, and so I am asking what my recourse would be. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a valid point of order. It is a matter for debate. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington controls the time. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

June 12, 2014

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman from Washington will yield, the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My inquiry is this: The gentleman from Washington, who is a friend, made a statement that is inaccurate. He stated that I had voted for the provision in this bill before. This bill provides a permanent unpaid for extension of business expensing. I have not done that. So my question to you is: What recourse do I have to set the record straight? The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously stated, that is a matter for debate. The gentleman from Washington controls the time. Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I would still say that the gentleman from Maryland—to clarify my point—has voted for the extension of these policies three times for a total of 8 years, and that is a fact. That is part of the voting record. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Washington yield? Mr. REICHERT. I do not yield. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I have a parliamentary inquiry on this. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is under recognition. The Member having the floor needs to yield for a parliamentary inquiry to be entertained. The gentleman from Washington is recognized. POINT OF ORDER

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. point of order.

VerDate Mar 15 2010

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

Mr.

Speaker,

Jkt 039060

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My point of order now is, I have asked for a parliamentary inquiry to make it absolutely clear that I have not voted for a permanent unpaid extension of the business expensing provisions in the past, which is what this bill does and which is the root of my objection to this bill, that it runs up the deficit in the way it does. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman has not stated a point of order. The gentleman is engaging in debate. The gentleman from Washington controls the time. The gentleman from Washington is recognized. Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate that the gentleman has voted for this extension of this policy three separate times for a period lasting 8 years. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LEVIN. Well, since you stated how many times I have voted to extend temporarily, I will now yield some time to Mr. VAN HOLLEN and then I will continue. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. VAN HOLLEN). I don’t think it will take very long to refute the statement made by the gentleman from Washington. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. LEVIN. As the gentleman from Washington knows, these issues come up every year as to whether or not we should extend certain tax provisions, in this case the business tax provision, earlier the R&D tax provision. Those are provisions that we support, but we support doing them in a fiscally responsible way. In fact, the motion to recommit we will have will also say we should extend them for one more year while we get our act together here, Mr. Speaker, and do it in a way that doesn’t run up the credit card by $600 billion, which is what the Ways and Means Committee has done in a period of 2 weeks—2 weeks—after spending days on the floor of this house a few months ago saying that the biggest threat to economic growth in the future was our budget deficit. b 1000 They say that 2 months ago, and then they waive their own rules to bring up these bills that increase our credit card debt to the tune of $600 billion total from what came out of the Ways and Means Committee, in violation of your own budget. That is what I object to. Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CAMP), the chairman of the committee. Mr. CAMP. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would just say, as the gentleman from Maryland said, we are probably going to do this again.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

As the majority whip in the Senate has said—to paraphrase—when we do these policies over and over again, we ought to have an honest debate about what should be permanent. If we do accept the motion to recommit—which I understand is going to be offered—that extends this one more time, that means we have extended this for a full budget window, unpaid for, so I understand why there is some defensiveness about the voting record over there, in terms of how many times they have voted to extend these policies unpaid for, but if we are going to do that, let’s do this in a permanent way, so we can bring some certainty to small businesses. We know that is where most of the jobs get created in any recovery. Let’s give small business in America some certainty, so that the job creation can start and they can understand exactly what their tax obligations are. This is something that, as I have said, many small business groups are behind and support. I urge adoption of this legislation. Mr. LEVIN. Is the gentleman ready to close? Mr. REICHERT. I am. I have no other speakers. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 5 minutes remaining. Mr. LEVIN. I am glad the chairman spoke because this back-and-forth really illustrates what this is all about. The chairman made these three provisions permanent and paid for. This bill here doesn’t pay one dime. We have voted to continue these programs on a short-term basis for a variety of reasons. For example, on bonus depreciation, the notion to make it permanent was contrary to its purpose. The chairman left it out of his reform and then comes here to vote to make it permanent. We need an honest debate about tax reform and what provisions should be made permanent. You have prevented any kind of an honest debate. You don’t even allow us to bring up some way to pay for any of this. I previously pointed out the difference. It is so striking. If you extend these provisions, as the Senate does, for 2 years, the cost is $3.4 billion. These two bills are $75 billion. There could be no more dramatic example of irresponsibility and of recklessness, and the mystery is: Why in the world are you doing this? As you can see, there aren’t huge numbers of Members here for the debate. You are going through the motions. These are rifle shots, and you are shooting yourselves in the foot. Don’t bring up the number of times that someone has voted to continue these on a temporary basis as you argue to make them permanent. That is dishonesty. I want to emphasize the path that is being followed here is not only contrary to the tax reform proposal, contrary to the Ryan budget. It is also

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.012

H12JNPT1


smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

June 12, 2014

going to lead to the Republicans, as Mr. VAN HOLLEN said so eloquently, raising this huge amount of deficit— $614 billion, going towards a trillion— and then the Republicans are going to come back here and say: wow, look at how much the deficit has increased. So you now need to cut these critical programs relating to the lifeline of all of the people in this country, the middle class and all who need some help. So I strongly urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 181⁄2 minutes remaining. Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, just to be honest, I also might want to mention that Mr. LEVIN has voted five times to extend these policies, for a total of 12 years. Congress—Democrats and Republicans—have repeatedly reauthorized these tax policies without paying for them. Democrats have agreed with the policy of these bills before us today. Making them permanent gives businesses certainty that they will always be a part of the Tax Code, and it is a more honest way of budgeting. Increasing taxes to pay for these policies makes no sense. We all agree that small businesses impacted by my bill need more access to their capital, which my bill gives them. Making the policies in this bill permanent, while raising taxes in the area of the economy, defeats the purpose of freeing up capital in a way that encourages job creation and moves the economy ahead. Again, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will give businesses what they have been asking for since I came to Congress, and that is the certainty in the Tax Code, so that the Tax Code is working for them and they are not working for the Tax Code, so they can plan ahead, so they can grow their business, so they can hire more workers, and so that we can get this economy moving again and get people back to work. In order to do that, Mr. Speaker, they need the ability to access their capital, so they can invest, again, in their businesses; reenergize their businesses; buy new equipment; sell new equipment; create jobs; and, again, grow the economy. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill before us today, and I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 4453, The Permanent S Corporation Built-In Gains Relief Act of 2014. Identical to a provision contained in the discussion draft of the ‘‘Tax Reform Act of 2014’’ released on February 26, 2014, the bill, H.R. 4453, reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, provides a permanent five-year recognition period for built-in gains of an S corporation. I support sound tax policy which allows small businesses in Houston to grow and in-

VerDate Mar 15 2010

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

H5329

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 039060

vest in their people—which is exactly what this bill would do. And supporters of the bills argue that they would eliminate a significant deterrent that can discourage C-corporations from electing to be S-corporations and will provide additional flexibility for S-corporations to access capital by selling unproductive assets to finance expansion of their businesses. Of course Democrats support permanent treatment of S-corporation taxes but we must again take our Republican friends to task for not offsetting the cost of the bill, noting again that permanently extending six tax provisions that GOP leaders want to act on would add $310 billion to the deficit. That’s $310 billion which could go to Head Start, Student Loans, or feeding the needy. Because we are the party of Small Business, Democrats understand that by making the provision permanent, businesses have more certainty and they can make better, more fluid decisions—but the process by which we are doing it is unseemly. But the GOP has made paying for every bill a prerequisite—except in this case. Where is the consistency, I ask? In moving forward with a permanent extension of a select group of tax extenders, the Majority is once again leaving to an increasingly uncertain fate critical provisions like the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, the New Markets Tax Credit, the Mortgage Relief Debt Forgiveness and the renewable energy tax credits, as well as the long-range status of the EITC and the Child Tax Credit. The Democrat’s Motion to Recommit would extend the S Corporation shorter Built-in Gains Recognition Period and Charitable Contribution Adjusted Basis for only two additional years, through the end of 2015, as opposed to the underlying bill’s permanent extension. It would prevent these tax cut extensions from permanently adding to the deficit, undermining comprehensive tax reform, and putting further pressure on the United States’ discretionary priorities. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to vote for a two-year extension but these bills must be paid for—because if they are not—future generations will suffer because of the unsustainable debt. Let us get back to being fiscally responsible. The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. MOTION TO RECOMMIT

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill? Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its current form. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Neal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4453 to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the same back to

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

the House forthwith with the following amendments: Amend section 2 to read as follows: SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF REDUCED RECOGNITION PERIOD FOR BUILT-IN GAINS OF S CORPORATIONS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (C) of sec-

tion 1374(d)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘2012 or 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015’’. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013. Amend section 3 to read as follows: SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF RULE REGARDING BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF S CORPORATION MAKING CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROPERTY. (a) IN GENERAL.—The last sentence of sec-

tion 1367(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2015’’. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.

Mr. NEAL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard. The Clerk will read. The Clerk continued to read. Mr. CAMP (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection to the reading. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to dispensing with the reading? There was no objection. Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit. The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I think what I would like to offer to the chairman at this moment is to pose the following question: Are you going to surrender this morning, or are you going to surrender in November? Because, really, those are the two options that are before us today. Let me retrace where we have been on tax reform. The chairman gets credit for a valiant effort at tax reform. Mr. LEVIN has acknowledged it; Mr. VAN HOLLEN has acknowledged it. For 3 years, we studiously and aggressively undertook a genuine effort to do tax reform. Now, what is interesting about it is the Democratic response to the chairman’s draft was fairly tepid. Let’s continue the conversation. Republicans released letters to the media, the Speaker poured cold water on the initiative, and a pretty good effort was cast aside. So we are back here this morning. Let me offer a couple of, I think, economic facts that might defy consideration around here because, sometimes, they don’t square with opinion. There has been little wage growth for the average American worker since

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.053

H12JNPT1


smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

H5330

2002. Downward pressure on wages is what we should be discussing. In addition, a company located not far from where I live submitted a tax form last year of 19,000 pages. They have 11 full-time Internal Revenue agents on site daily. If this isn’t a reason to go back to the table and negotiate tax reform, I don’t know what is. The chairman kind of cleverly suggested here this morning that, if we were to accept what is being proposed by the Democratic minority, might that be a path forward? It is a path forward. We are offering a 2-year extension of these provisions. I hope Mr. REICHERT or Mr. CAMP returns and says: indeed, Mr. NEAL has voted for these repeatedly. We are counting on you, Mr. Chairman, to point out how many times I voted for them. Guess what? You are right, and we are going to vote for them again in November. This exercise in futility illserves the American people, other than to perhaps get to some messaging points. I don’t disagree with these. I disagree with the idea of breaking the budget to make them permanent this morning, but I, more importantly, disagree with the whole notion that we are giving up on tax reform if we make these permanent. Some of the provisions in the Code need to be discarded. Mr. Chairman, I would remind you and the Republican staff that you removed 300 provisions, exclusions, deductions, and preferences from the Code. So we come back here this morning in this ill-conceived effort to embrace a couple of favorites? The Tax Code in America has not been touched since 1986. I would remind you this morning, for all of you out here today, that was before the Internet was invented. That is the question before us. A Tax Code for a modern economy, or do we go back to, well, Mr. NEAL voted for this 8 times? Yes, he did. In fact, Mr. NEAL has been on the Ways and Means Committee longer than the three previous speakers, so you can probably say Mr. NEAL has voted for them 11 times because I think many of them work, in the absence of fundamental reform. The last point, the chairman said he was going to 25 percent. The Democrats said go to 28 percent on the corporate side. We could have done all of this, had we gone to 28 percent, but ideology reigns, so we go to 25 percent. Even President Obama was at 28 percent. This is not the way this institution is supposed to function, Mr. Speaker. The Ways and Means Committee is a privileged perspective on complicated issues. You don’t do them like this when it comes to items in the Code. So accept the notion that everybody dislikes the Code. Specificity in terms of what we are going to wean out becomes the problem. b 1015 Here is our last position—a 2-year extension.

VerDate Mar 15 2010

June 12, 2014

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

Jkt 039060

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to seeing you after the elections. You and I are going to shake hands, and as much as we all like to say, ‘‘I hate to say, ‘I told you so,’ ’’ I am going to say, ‘‘As much as I hate telling you this, I told you so.’’ I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to direct their remarks to the Chair. Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I seek time in opposition to the motion. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, frankly, this motion to recommit is absurd. It is absurd in this economy to threaten small business with higher taxes. The gentleman referred to favorites. Yes, I do have favorites. Those are the small businesses all across America that hire and to which people go to work every day. The margins are tight. You know the testimony we have had before the Ways and Means Committee. We need growth in this economy, certainty, and long-term tax policy. We are the only nation in the world that allows its tax policy to expire. Instead of threatening small businesses with higher taxes, we should give confidence to small businesses— confidence to know what the tax policy is. Look, it has been extended so many times it may as well be permanent. This is the point—so that they will grow, so that they will invest, so that they will hire workers. People will have higher wages as a result of a stronger, growing economy because families and middle class Americans will have jobs. Reject this threat of higher taxes, particularly on small businesses. Reject this motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. f

AMERICA’S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2014 Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I call up the bill (H.R. 4457) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the title of the bill.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 616, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in House Report 113–472, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read. The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows: H.R. 4457 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘America’s Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014’’. SEC. 2. EXPENSING CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS FOR SMALL BUSINESS. (a) IN GENERAL.— (1) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Paragraph (1) of

section 179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘shall not exceed—’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘shall not exceed $500,000.’’. (2) REDUCTION IN LIMITATION.—Paragraph (2) of section 179(b) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘exceeds—’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘exceeds $2,000,000.’’. (b) COMPUTER SOFTWARE.—Clause (ii) of section 179(d)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘, to which section 167 applies, and which is placed in service in a taxable year beginning after 2002 and before 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘and to which section 167 applies’’. (c) ELECTION.—Paragraph (2) of section 179(c) of such Code is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘may not be revoked’’ and all that follows through ‘‘and before 2014’’, and (2) by striking ‘‘IRREVOCABLE’’ in the heading thereof. (d) AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING UNITS.— Paragraph (1) of section 179(d) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘and shall not include air conditioning or heating units’’. (e) QUALIFIED REAL PROPERTY.—Subsection (f) of section 179 of such Code is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘beginning in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013’’ in paragraph (1), and (2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4). (f) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Subsection (b) of section 179 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ‘‘(6) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any taxable year beginning after 2014, the dollar amounts in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall each be increased by an amount equal to— ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(c)(2)(A) for such calendar year, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2013’ for ‘calendar year 2012’ in clause (ii) thereof. ‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—The amount of any increase under subparagraph (A) shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10,000.’’. (g) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013. SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. (a) STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO SCORECARDS.—The budgetary effects of this Act

shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. (b) SENATE PAYGO SCORECARDS.—The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard maintained for purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress).

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.016

H12JNPT1


June 12, 2014

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CAMP) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CAMP). GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4457. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The tax burden that small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and their workers face is too high. Every dollar Washington takes from small businesses is a dollar that they don’t have to invest in equipment, to start a new production line, to hire a new employee, or to provide more in wages and benefits. Businesses aren’t growing, and hardworking Americans are seeing stagnant wages and fewer work hours. This is unacceptable. These days, it seems that Congress can rarely agree on much, so when we can find some common ground to help grow the economy and get businesses to invest and hire new workers, we should act immediately. The legislation we have before us today, America’s Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, would do just that by providing a permanent extension of section 179 expensing at a level of $500,000. Section 179 is a bipartisan provision that has been in place since the 1950s, but businesses, farmers, and ranchers cannot reap the full benefits when they have no idea if this provision is going to be around the next year or what it may look like. This hurts their ability to plan for the future and expand their businesses. The Farm Bureau recently stated:

smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

This practice makes it very difficult for farmers and ranchers to plan, and it adds immense confusion and complexity to the Tax Code.

It is time to make section 179 permanent at an expensing level of $500,000 so American farmers, ranchers, and small businesses can invest in new equipment, grow their businesses, and plan for the future. Sure, House Democrats, many who have sponsored this legislation before, are now demanding that we pay for an extension of these policies despite voting year after year to extend these jobcreating policies without their being paid for. Frankly, the millions of Americans searching for jobs or for a few extra dollars in their paychecks know that pro-growth policies like this pay for themselves in the form of new investments, new jobs, and higher wages. I think we can all agree this is the right policy, and we should set the rhetoric aside so we can have an America that works, with a strong and vibrant economy.

VerDate Mar 15 2010

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

H5331

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 039060

By supporting permanent policies, Washington can promote certainty for American businesses and generate additional economic growth. We have become too accustomed to poor jobs reports, anemic growth, and just accepting things as they are. Small business expensing has been a bipartisan policy for decades, and it is time to make it a permanent part of the Tax Code. Washington needs to wake up, to start listening to the American people, and to act on real policies that strengthen the economy and help hardworking taxpayers. Today’s legislation will do just that. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Small business can have full confidence that this provision will be extended—period. Indeed, the fact that I have voted for it many times in the past, as pointed out, is confidence that it will be continued. As to the suggestion that we have made to continue it for 2 years, we are already well into the first year, and if we don’t act until the end of the year and extend it for 2 years, that would be another one not even for another full year, but there would be a 2-year extension. So small business can be fully confident this will be extended. There is no threat to it. There is zero threat to its extension. When it was said earlier by the chairman that small business can have no idea as to whether this will be extended next year, that simply is not correct. The Senate has before it a bill to extend it for 2 years. At some point, that will pass, and that is the bill that will be taken up in the House. The chairman did extend permanently this provision—not many others. He paid for that. The chairman extolled the fact that he paid for it, and now they have gone in reverse and now suggest that we proceed unpaid for permanently. The cost of this is far different than a 2-year extension, as I have mentioned—far different. We are talking about over $70 billion compared to a few billion dollars. Let me just say that everybody has to be mystified as to why in the world the Republicans are doing this when it violates their budget, when it violates the chairman’s and the Republicans’ Ways and Means tax proposal, and when, if this is done, it is going to be part of a ratcheting up of the deficit of $614 billion and will have major ramifications for so many programs. Essentially, what they are doing is, on the one hand, increasing this deficit dramatically—through the ceiling. Then they are going to come back on the other hand and say, ah, the deficit went through the ceiling, so we need to take away, with the other, education programs, health programs—all kinds of programs that are necessary—transportation programs. They are going to say, well, we just don’t have the money when, essentially, the reason is that they have tried to pass a bill that throws money out the window.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

We are going to extend the small business tax cut. We are going to do that—Democrats will stand together to make sure that that happens—but not in a way that is part of a reckless, irresponsible approach. That is a major, major reason we simply have to say: extend it for 2 years. Then let’s sit down and talk about what we are going to do with these provisions as part of a tax reform effort that is serious and is bipartisan. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. TIBERI) control the remainder of the time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on the Ways and Means Committee. It has been an honor and a privilege to work with you. You have been a great leader, and we look forward to allowing you to lead us the rest of this year on our committee as we continue the debate on the extenders and making some permanent. H.R. 4457 would permanently extend the small business expensing for equipment and property outlined in section 179 of the Tax Code. As many of you know, section 179 first came into existence in 1958. I wasn’t yet born. My parents were not yet married. They got married in 1958, so they didn’t see the debate here in Washington. It may not have been quite like the debate today, though, I would say, because, ladies and gentlemen, Members of Congress, this is a mystifying debate. This shouldn’t be this difficult. No wonder Congress has a low approval rating. Section 179 of our Tax Code is very simple, and as the chairman said, it has been very bipartisan over the years. It allows businessowners to immediately deduct the cost of the investments of property and computer software rather than depreciating such cost over time. In fact, on January 1, what had been an extender that allowed for the maximum expensing of $500,000 and the deduction phased out of investments exceeding $2 million went back to what is current law today. That is why this is so important. It is the essence of this debate, and it is the essence of what my bill does because it went down. The limit went down to $25,000 and up to $200,000 of investments. If you talk to Tom and Judy Price, who are from my district, they think that what we do here is just crazy and mystifying because they have to make real decisions in real time and with real money, not make-believe, not theory. They have to make decisions that impact real lives and real costs and real jobs. This is a jobs bill. That is what this is about. If you ask Tom and Judy Price, we have had expensing, and

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.019

H12JNPT1


H5332

smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

we have had higher limits than $25,000. We don’t today. We had them before, but they weren’t paid for. We have had them for the 10 years since I have been here, and they haven’t been paid for. But do you know what? Here is the reality of life. In Delaware County, Ohio, I talked to Tom Price this morning. He has a mulching business. He needs to buy a loader. Is Congress going to provide certainty? Oh, 2 years is fine. Retroactivity is fine. That is the narrative around here, Mr. Speaker. We’ve done it before. Let’s do it again this way. b 1030 The Senate won’t accept it. Let’s surrender our card today. Let’s surrender my voting card, Mr. Speaker. It is somewhere here. Let me give it to the Senate. My daughter, going into sixth grade, understands there are two Houses. We shouldn’t be surrendering this card, Mr. Speaker, to the Senate because, oh, the Senate is going to do it their way; have always done it that way. Ladies and gentlemen, a bill becomes a law this way. The House passes a bill. That is what we are trying to do today, Mr. Speaker, add permanency. Tom and Judy Price, in their mulching business, they would like certainty to plan, not oh, we will make it retroactive and we will go out a year. Oh, by the way, Mr. Price, we are going to do it in November. We are going to make it retroactive to January. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? You guys couldn’t survive running a business in Washington, D.C. You couldn’t survive. That is what this debate is all about. It is about reality. My daughter knows that the Senate has the right to do anything they want, but we have our right with our card. Guess what? There is supposed to be a conference committee. There is supposed to be a real debate and oh, my God, compromise between the House and the Senate. That is what this is supposed to be about. That is what I tell my daughter who is going into sixth grade. But no, let’s surrender to the Senate right now. Let’s just surrender. We have surrendered before. And oh my goodness, these deficits. These businesses pay taxes. You all want to raise taxes on them. When we had a debate on this floor, and I was here in 2009, we passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill. $1 trillion. Nobody cared about the deficit then. But Mr. Price and Mrs. Price are trying to buy a loader for $200,000, and we are debating over the deficit and temporary Tax Code and retroactivity and surrendering to the Senate. That is what this debate is about. That is what this has come to. And you wonder why, Mr. Speaker, Americans think Washington is broken; because we don’t understand what real-life Americans who are trying to

VerDate Mar 15 2010

June 12, 2014

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

Jkt 039060

run a business and hire employees and raise their wages, they don’t understand why we are having these mystical debates because they are living in the real world, the real world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER), our whip. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, but I am constrained to respond to the remarks, the emotional remarks, the perplexed remarks of the gentleman who preceded me. I have a voting card too. And I don’t know whether either Tom or Judy Price have been unemployed, or whether their brother or their sister have run out of unemployment insurance and have been left twisting in the wind. But this voting card could give them extended unemployment insurance. I don’t know whether Tom and Judy Price have employees who are making the minimum wage and living in poverty. This card could change that and up the minimum wage, but it hasn’t been brought to the floor. I tell my friend from Ohio, this card could fix what everybody agrees is a broken immigration system, but we are not using this card, I tell my friend from Ohio, because we are dabbling in the unrealistic. This card, this card could pass export-import. He wants to grow jobs. Export-import is absolutely critical, and it phases out, and you will not bring it to this floor. This card, and your card, joined together with 216 other cards, could pass all of those pieces of legislation. This card could make sure that Tom and Judy Price have an economy that is more resilient. And this card—my friend from Ohio is distracted, but I tell my friend from Ohio, this card helped pass the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, without which Tom and Judy Price might not be in business today because your tax policies of 2001 and 2003, unpaid for, which were supposed to grow this economy, resulted in more loss of jobs than any policy since Herbert Hoover. This card ought to be used today for fiscal responsibility. This card ought to be used to say to your chairman that you praised, DAVID CAMP, yes, we want to do comprehensive tax reform, not just little item by little item by little item, which destroys tax reform, which exacerbates our deficit, and will destroy investment in education, infrastructure, and growing our economy. This card, I urge my colleagues to use responsibly this day. All of us here support helping small businesses expand operations so they can hire more workers, all of us. Our Tax Code ought to encourage small businesses to do so. But the Republican majority’s approach to tax policy, evidenced by the two bills on the floor today, is simply the wrong path.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

Do not use your card, given to you by the American people, trusting that you will do the responsible, commonsense thing, don’t use this card irresponsibly today. The bills we are considering today are the latest examples of Republican hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy on deficits, as their approach would raise deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars. There is no free lunch. This pretends there is a free lunch. Hypocrisy on tax policy is a representative rejection of the comprehensive approach to tax reform Republicans’ own Ways and Means Chairman, DAVID CAMP, that the gentleman from Ohio just praised, put on this floor, or at least put on the table, not on the floor. And the response of the Speaker of this House was, and I quote, ‘‘Blah, blah, blah, blah.’’ What a shame. How unserious. While I have serious concerns about some of the policy changes that Chairman CAMP’s proposal contains, it made the difficult choices and it was paid for. It was responsible. Republicans and Democrats all say we want a comprehensive tax reform. This undermines tax reform. So if you say you are for comprehensive tax reform, don’t do little, itty-bitty pieces that are unpaid for, exacerbate the deficit, and undermine tax reform. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman. Mr. HOYER. These bills today reject that approach and, instead, take the easy way out by irresponsibly adding their cost to the deficit, a deficit that my friends on the other side of the aisle, with whom I join, lament on a daily basis but, somehow, disconnect their policies from their lamentations. In doing so, these bills will put even more pressure on a discretionary budget facing the return of sequester next year, undermining our ability to invest in critical priorities like veterans care, highways, education, bills to make sure that we grow our economy and create jobs. Democrats are ready to make the hard choices so that we leave America a better country, not a poorer country, not a deeper in debt country, but a better country for our children and our grandchildren. Rather than waste our time on these individual bills, Congress ought to debate and amend comprehensive tax reform, allowing us to face up to our responsibility to make the tough decisions the American people expect from their representatives. Mr. Speaker, I don’t live in a perfect Congress, none of us do, or in a country that always makes the right decisions. So I will vote for an MTR which says we are not going to permanently exacerbate our deficit, but we will make sure that business does have the opportunity to have these tax benefits, as we

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.020

H12JNPT1


smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

June 12, 2014

have in a bipartisan basis done in the past. So I will vote for the MTR. I will vote to make sure that we extend these for 2 years, as the Senate suggests. I don’t think that is the best policy. It is not the policy I would choose. The policy I would choose is comprehensively giving permanent, long-term R&D, paid for so that we don’t exacerbate the deficit, but we do give confidence so businesses can grow. So I tell my friend from Ohio, we both have a card. The responsible step for us to take is to vote ‘‘no’’ on temporary and come with fiscally responsible legislation to this floor. Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Hoosier State, Indiana (Mr. YOUNG), a great member of the Ways and Means Committee and a member of the Select Revenue Subcommittee. He has provided great leadership on the subcommittee, and I appreciate his work. Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4457, America’s Small Business Tax Relief Act. I want to thank my colleague, PAT TIBERI, for his hard work on this initiative, which is vital to the small businesses and farmers across my district. I would be remiss if I didn’t respond to the last speaker’s comments, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland who, with a straight face, indicated that this card, his card, was a vehicle for fiscal responsibility when, consistently he has confused this card with this card, a credit card. We have continued to rack up debts, over and over again, and we have not engaged in growth-oriented public policy, and that is what this bill is intended to do. This bill increases the amount a small business taxpayer may immediately deduct when she buys operating materials for her business. The ability of small businesses to immediately deduct the cost of qualified investment in the year purchased, rather than having to recover the cost through depreciation over several years, has been essential to the survival of thousands of firms over the past decade. Higher expensing limits will encourage businesses to invest in new computers, tractors, and other types of business equipment and grow. Such investment will have, of course, important second-order effects—economists tell us this—on the economy as these purchases are magnified throughout the nation. The version of section 179 we are considering today expired at the end of 2012, and since then, back home I have heard from a parade of constituents, businessowners and workers alike, about the need to restore the provision. I have heard from Indiana NFIB, Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Manufacturers Association, Indiana Farm Bureau, and countless individual businesses and workers, and I am glad

VerDate Mar 15 2010

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

H5333

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 039060

we are working in the House, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, to help unleash the ability of our Nation’s small businesses to grow. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. TIBERI. I yield the gentleman an additional minute. Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. These small businesses are the engine of American job creation. They create roughly three out of five American jobs that have been created over recent years. And one critical means of supporting American small businesses and working Americans is through business tax incentives like section 179. This is a proven success. It has proven itself over the last several years. And it is evident that these small businesses are one bright spot of job creation, personal opportunity, and upward mobility during these troubled times. I support this commonsensical bill that is going to help small businesses grow and restore a measure of hope and opportunity to rank-and-file Americans during these troubled times. I would like to thank Chairman TIBERI for his important work in offering this legislation. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their partisan reservations to supporting this measure. b 1045 Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 1 minute and yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER), the whip. Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman from Indiana raised his credit card. He apparently is going to use his vote as you would use a credit card, to incur an additional $73 billion in unpaid for debt. Mr. LEVIN. The whip is so correct. The gentleman from Indiana is very confused. He is using his voting card as a credit card. $73 billion on this bill. Our voting card is not a credit card, but the Republicans are turning this into a credit card, with calamitous results. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT), another distinguished member of our committee. Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Republicans would dig our country into another trillion dollars of debt, borrowing from the Chinese, the Saudis, whoever will lend it to us. They have already approved borrowing $614 billion for business tax breaks, and they have told us that there are more on the way, more tax privileges, more tax exceptions, more tax advantages. This bill today is just another chapter in their ledger of accounts payable for the American taxpayers. Such fiscal irresponsibility doesn’t represent a plan for genuine tax relief for small businesses or for anyone else. I will say that I agree with them, that small businesses have every rea-

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

son to complain, as do individual taxpayers, because the Tax Code that they have done so much to write is riddled with special treatment for those who pay more to their lobbyists here in Washington than they do to the U.S. Treasury. It has been a wise investment for them, but a pretty sorry outcome for small business and individual taxpayers. We have some multinational companies who have set up hundreds of offshore subsidiaries to shift their profits out of America and into a place where they don’t pay a dime. I can tell you that the cleaning crew at the headquarters of General Electric pays a higher tax rate than General Electric does. That is not fair. They pay a higher tax rate than Joe’s Bakery or Patty’s Taco House down in San Antonio. That is not fair. It ought to be corrected; but instead, they have added almost another $100 billion in tax loopholes that they have proposed and have approved in committee to help those folks continue dodging their taxes. At the same time, the proponents of today’s bills tell us that America simply cannot afford more to educate its children. Only the day before yesterday, the Senate refused to address the problem of soaring student debt, now bigger than credit card debt, exceeded only by the giant debt they want to incur for more tax breaks. They tell us: we can’t afford to do the research necessary to cure Alzheimer’s or to find new solutions to cancer and AIDS and other dreaded diseases. This is not about borrowing to raise small business up. This is just an excuse to reduce the government investment that we need to grow our economy. Apparently, to the Republicans, deficits only matter when asking seniors and students and others to sacrifice, but not when it comes to adding one tax break after another. Now, how did we get to the situation that we are in today? Well, there has been a convenient amnesia about the history of tax reform in this Congress. Last January, the gentleman from Ohio—the Speaker—and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. CANTOR) came to this floor and they said: America, have we got a deal for you. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute. Mr. DOGGETT. We have got a great deal for you. This big old fat Tax Code that is bigger than the Bible many times over, that we helped expand to resolve the needs of our special interest supporters, we are going to put it on a diet. We are going to thin it down. We are going to give you a simple Tax Code that is easy to comply with. In addition to that, we are going to lower your rate; and you know what, we are going to do all that, and we are not going to add a penny to the national debt, and we will keep the rates relatively the same for everybody.

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.022

H12JNPT1


smartinez on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE

H5334

They reserved H.R. 1. They said: it is so important, we are going to make it the number one priority here. Where are we on that bill, I would ask the gentleman today; and I can tell you it is still reserved for the Speaker. They have never brought it out, put it on this table, and given the American people a chance to vote on it because what happened was they went through a long process, they produced their draft bill, and the lobby went wild against it. They could not stand up to the very people that helped them write the complex, unfair Tax Code that we have today. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired. Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute. Mr. DOGGETT. They couldn’t stand up to those special interests, so that bill, 18 months later—not the result of anything the Democrats did, not the result of anything the President did— they couldn’t agree among themselves about how to respond to all those special interest pressures. So they are back today, going one little bill at a time to add a few hundred billion here, a few hundred billion dollars there, and not provide the comprehensive tax reform they told us, themselves, they would be providing, and that is why we find ourselves in the predicament we are in today. I agree with the gentleman, people in Ohio, across America, in Texas, and elsewhere, that they have reason to question this Congress, because a promise is just like that. Promises to bring reform, to work together in a bipartisan fashion left on the cutting room floor because special interests, the people that don’t pay their fair share of taxes today, they want to keep it that way. They want to continue to disadvantage small business and individual taxpayers. Today, we need to say ‘‘no’’ to this measure and ‘‘no’’ to their other temporary measures and demand real reform. Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just for the record, the gentleman from Texas has voted for the policy of either increasing or extending section 179, without offsets, six times on a temporary basis for a total of 8 years. Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. TIBERI. The gentleman from Michigan has time to yield to the gentleman from Texas. The motion to recommit that the minority keeps talking about today will add billions to the deficit as well, and as I explained earlier, the problem with the narrative of We have done it this way, we are going to do it again, and the problem with surrender, as was talked about by the gentleman from Massachusetts, who I have a great deal of respect for, is the fact that we are missing the point of what is happening in the real America.

VerDate Mar 15 2010

June 12, 2014

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

05:52 Jun 13, 2014

Jkt 039060

Real Americans see that we, on this floor, get a stimulus bill by the other side, in 2009—and I was here—jammed down our throats that added $1 trillion to the deficit. Today, the minority is concerned about the deficit, and I assume they want those same small business owners who are trying so hard to create jobs with additional regulations—like Tom and Judy Price face—and they want them to pay more taxes, that is the bottom line; but when they have increased the debt before—whether it is for temporary tax policy or additional spending—there was no concern about the deficit and the debt. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Secretary Lew, in a speech at the Economic Club in New York, said, ‘‘The U.S. could face a permanent downturn in economic growth without increased business investment.’’ How timely—because if you go to my district and talk to Tom Price or talk to Gary Skinner, who owns a farm— and I had the privilege of being in his combine, that combine costs $250,000— guess what: it is about this provision today. The reality with our unpermanent extender policy, with respect to the investments that Mr. Lew talked about yesterday, is that real job creators who are trying to grow their businesses, hire more people—so people like my dad, when I was in high school— wouldn’t have to get unemployment, like he did or my dad—who was an immigrant, so I understand a little bit about immigration—despite the fact that the gentleman from Maryland might not think so—and mom, another immigrant—could get jobs. That is what this is all about. All you have to do is go talk to these job creators who are looking at us with a whole lot of perplexed looks as to: Why can’t we change the narrative? Why can’t the House have a position to negotiate with the Senate? Why does it have to always be, well, this is the way we have done it retroactively for 2 years, this is the way we will do it again? That gives no certainty to these job creators, to these farmers. That is what this debate is all about, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. BLUMENAUER), another distinguished member of our committee. Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman’s courtesy. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend from Ohio talk about his concern for small businesses and the economy. I am reflecting on the thousands of businesses that were represented here on Capitol Hill this week, calling on Congress to get its act together, dealing with transportation funding. We are facing a crisis in transportation in this country. The majority,

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4634

Sfmt 0634

because they couldn’t put together a transportation bill last year, drove the highway trust fund down to zero. They milked every single dime to be able to get a 27-month extension. What has happened? Well, actually, what has happened is that it is not even going to last until October 1. All across the country, States are cutting back on funding contracts now because the Department of Transportation is going to run out of money late this summer. These people were rallying on Capitol Hill, large business, small business, environment, unions, from all across America, saying: Congress, get your act together. I will note, with some small amount of irony, that my friends on the Ways and Means Committee have approved over $600 billion of tax breaks added to the deficit that would have fully funded not one 6-year transportation bill, but two robust transportation bills. Did you listen to those small businesses? Did you listen to the contractors? Did you listen to the equipment rental people, the asphalt, the gravel, the concrete? To those people, we have turned a deaf ear. The Ways and Means Committee, in 42 months, has not had a single hearing on transportation finance. We had one misguided work session on a bill that had never had the benefit of a hearing that collapsed. They passed it out of committee, but they couldn’t even bring it to the floor, so we got this 27month extension. We are facing, this summer, losing 700,000 construction jobs because Congress refuses to act. My friends on Ways and Means won’t even have a hearing on transportation, will approve $600 billion worth of tax cuts; but we are not dealing with a crisis for your State, for my State, red States, blue States, union and nonunion, big business, small business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the building trades. Let’s get a grip. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute. Mr. BLUMENAUER. If you care about small business, if you care about the health and welfare of your community, if you care about the future of the economy, read the Standard & Poor’s report that pointed out that the investments we make will pay for themselves many times over. It is not just saving those 700,000 jobs. It is an opportunity to grow the economy in the future in something that doesn’t have to be conservative, liberal, red State, blue State. It is an opportunity to bring America together to rebuild and renew our economy. That is what we should be focusing on, rather than this sideshow today that is going to make long-term tax reform harder, add to the deficit, and not deal with the fundamental problems that our constituents were asking us to deal with this week.

E:\CR\FM\K12JN7.043

H12JNPT1

Congressional Record - Congressional Record (June 12, 1014)  

This is a free sample of Congressional Record issue "Congressional Record (June 12, 1014)" Download full version from: Apple App Store: htt...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you